Once global beacons of academic excellence, Western universities are now experiencing a profound crisis of meritocracy. The institutions that once set the gold standard for academic rigor and scientific inquiry are, in many disciplines—especially the social and political sciences—succumbing to ideological conformity, politicized hiring, and a declining commitment to intellectual prominence. The issue is not mere polemic. Numerous studies and surveys confirm what many within academia whisper but fear to say aloud. A 2022 study by Heterodox Academy found that 60% of U.S. professors self-censor on controversial topics due to fear of professional repercussions. In the UK, a 2021 report by the Free Speech Union revealed that 32% of academics avoid contentious subjects, with the 2019 deplatforming of feminist scholar Selina Todd at Oxford serving as a chilling example. These trends mark a retreat from the open marketplace of ideas that once defined academic life.
What began as a challenge to academic exclusion has evolved into an epistemic rupture—where lived experience eclipses evidence, and objectivity is recast as privilege.
This dilemma is fundamentally rooted in a profound epistemic transformation. The Enlightenment’s principles of objective knowledge have been progressively contested by the misleading concept “Verum ipsum factum” (truth itself is manufactured), introduced by Giambattista Vico, an author of the social construction of truth. Although these criticisms originally enhanced the humanities by elevating marginalized viewpoints, they have gradually undermined common standards of proof. In prestigious institutions today, it is sometimes said that “lived experience” supersedes empirical data or that objectivity itself constitutes a type of privilege. This shift towards subjectivity has enabled ideological movements—particularly those prioritizing identification above empirical evidence—to prevail in entire disciplines.
The perspective of emphasizing truth’s social construction enriched the humanities by amplifying marginalized voices, but its overapplication has eroded shared standards of evidence in social sciences. For instance, at a 2022 sociology conference at the University of Toronto, a panel prioritized “lived experience” over statistical data in discussions of systemic racism, dismissing quantitative critiques as “colonial.” While subjective perspectives enhance fields like sociology, their dominance risks sidelining rigorous, testable inquiry. A 2020 study in The Journal of Higher Education found that 45% of social science faculty viewed empirical objectivity as secondary to narrative-driven research, allowing ideological trends—often tied to identity politics—to shape academic priorities.
Nowhere is this transformation more visible than in the rise of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) bureaucracies. Originally aimed at expanding opportunity, DEI initiatives have often evolved into ideological gatekeeping mechanisms. At the University of California, Berkeley, a 2018–2019 search for life sciences faculty rejected 76% of applicants solely on the basis of diversity statements deemed insufficiently progressive, according to a 2021 report by the Academic Freedom Alliance. As Princeton professor Joshua Katz warned before his forced departure, DEI programs often serve to “enforce a single orthodoxy.” The point is not to dismiss the importance of inclusion. Recruiting underrepresented scholars based on merit strengthens academia. But when ideological alignment is prioritized over qualifications—as in Berkeley’s hiring practices or the 2020 cancellation of a Yale anthropology course for not aligning with DEI norms—the result is not diversity, but intellectual stagnation.
Even more concerning is the legitimization of mediocrity through ideological alignment and quota-driven funding structures. Many elite institutions have adopted recruitment programs that emphasize identity categories over scholarly contribution. As a result, professorial appointments have been granted to individuals—often from developing or post-Soviet states—with limited academic output. Troublingly, some of these individuals now occupy long-term positions at world-leading institutions like Harvard and Oxford, thereby denying more qualified scholars fair access through competitive merit-based processes. This trend not only undermines the academic standards of these universities but also accelerates the erosion of their global reputation as bastions of scholarly excellence.
I speak not merely from abstract theory but from informed familiarity with the academic environments at Harvard University and the University of Oxford—specifically the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies and Oxford’s Department of Education. In both cases, I have encountered Georgian academics whose qualifications and intellectual engagement fell far below professorial standards. Engaging some of them in even a brief conversation quickly reveals a superficial understanding of their fields and an inability to contribute meaningfully to scholarly discourse. The rise of ideologically driven mediocrats—many of whom have been thoroughly indoctrinated with leftist dogma—reflects the broader decline in academic standards. Their rise to elite positions appears driven more by ideological alignment and clientelist ties to Soros-funded and similar left-leaning programs than by demonstrated merit.
Georgia itself offers a case study in this broader trend. Over the past several decades, thousands of Georgian students—many shaped by liberal ideological indoctrination—have been sent en masse to top universities in the UK and United States, often through what resembles a conveyor-belt system. Yet this mass investment in elite education has yielded little in terms of national progress. On the contrary, governance and policymaking in Georgia have often fallen into the hands of individuals trained in environments where ideological dogma eclipses critical thinking. In my own work, I have repeatedly struggled to recruit research coordinators and project managers from this pool. Many of these graduates lacked fundamental skills in policy analysis, strategic thinking, sound management, leadership, and decision-making—despite holding degrees from prestigious institutions.
I’ve come across more than a few social climbers and free riders posing as seekers of knowledge. Years ago, in Georgia, one of these individuals approached me for a recommendation to pursue a master’s degree at Harvard University. She explained that she intended to apply to the Harvard Graduate School of Education with funding from the Georgian government. Her proposed thesis, she said, would focus on reforming Georgia’s education system, and she emphasized that the Harvard experience would be instrumental in shaping her contribution to her country’s development. Trusting her intentions, I provided the recommendation. To my astonishment, I later discovered that her master’s thesis had nothing to do with Georgian education. Instead, it focused on the educational rights of women in Mozambique—an entirely unrelated topic. What followed was even more troubling: she was appointed to a senior position in Georgia’s Ministry of Education, one of the most notoriously corrupt institutions under Saakashvili’s authoritarian administration. The embarrassment deepened when I began hearing harsh criticism from colleagues and policy experts, who noted that she lacked even a basic understanding of education policy. The most paradoxical twist came years later, when I learned that she had become an associate professor in the Department of Education at the University of Oxford.
The public is taking notice. A 2023 Gallup poll revealed that public trust in higher education in the U.S. has fallen from 57% in 2015 to just 36%. Among conservatives, trust is as low as 19%. This collapse in credibility is not a media creation—it reflects growing disillusionment with universities’ unwillingness to engage in self-critique. Graduates often emerge fluent in the language of structural oppression, yet unprepared for leadership, reasoned debate, or practical policy work. Meanwhile, taxpayer and donor funds subsidize ideologically insulated research with limited real-world relevance.
The solution is not to reject inclusion or social awareness, but to restore the primacy of merit, open debate, and epistemic humility. Universities must:
- Reform hiring and admissions practices to prioritize intellectual achievement over ideological signaling.
- Reinstate viewpoint diversity as a core academic value.
- Separate DEI functions from academic quality assessment.
- Rebuild trust by ensuring research and teaching serve public understanding, not political fashion.
The West’s universities once stood as cathedrals of knowledge. Unless they reclaim that role, they risk becoming hollow temples—rich in prestige but impoverished in thought.